RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message

Panama -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/17/2011 6:02:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

My main problem with WITE, as it was with GDW's "Drang nach Osten" and FITE 30 years ago, is that its reinforcement/replacement/re-organisation schedule for the Germans is so historically accurate and based on historic events. For example 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions arrive in early spring 1944 to help break out "The Hube Pocket" even if such an event does not happen in game.

Up to mid/late 1942, when the Axis Powers still had the initiative, this is probably acceptable but as the war continues, whether to their advantage or the Soviets, it becomes a failure of the game system. If things had been going well in the East in 1944 for the Germans, or even less badly, 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions, which were being readied to face the Allies in the West, would never have been sent East.

As has already been expressed very well in another thread the restructuring of German divisions (TOE changes) was as a result of what was happening in the real campaign which might not be happening in a game.

Might be incredibly difficult to programme changes to NOT replicate history for the Axis but at the moment WITE is not getting it right.


To be honest, the only way you could do what you seem to be suggesting is to play a global world war. Because I can think of many things that happened in the Pacific that could possibly affect US forces in North Africa or Europe that could possibly affect Axis units on the East Front or Japanese events that could affect Soviet forces in front of Moscow in 1941.

While it would be physically possible to create such a game, given the computing power and storage space we have now, it would be insanity for anyone to do it at 10 miles per hex. Anyone attempting to play such a game would need to check into the nearest nut ward to have their mental stability verified before starting. [:D]

The game or scenario designer has to draw the line some place don't you think?




bevans -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/18/2011 5:48:33 AM)

Panama: would one need to pass or fail that mental stability test before being allowed to play WWII on a 10 mile per hex scale?

But the overall point is valid: WitE accurately reflects what the Germans had and did on OB, TOE and production limits; the issue is that one doesn't play the game to repeat history so the rigid adherence to history, e.g. those darned late war TOEs and reinforcement/withdrawal schedules is deeply flawed. However, it is a highly defensible deeply flawed approach for the designers to take. And they gave us the editor (sadly without instructions on how to use it) to give us a chance to do our own what if's. My own what if's are a better Axis TOE and the Germans going to a war economy earlier (upgraded the SU economy as well, just to be fair). Well into T1 so still a bit early to tell how this will turn out.



EntropyAvatar -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/18/2011 2:56:52 PM)

I don't think you need to run the whole war to have a more flexible approach here. For instance, perhaps you could have a pool of points that simulates Germany's ability to dedicate reinforcement divisions to the eastern front. When demands on other fronts are not high, you accumulate points that allow you to select reinforcement divisions from a list of those available. The political cost of getting these reinforcements reflects the overall quality of the division. At some random point (within a certain range) out-of-theatre events will occur that lower your reinforcement pool and you will have to withdraw some units to get back to zero or the game will do it for you.

You could tie TOE into this as well. Make the default ToE fairly stable, but you have the option of lowering your target mechanized or infantry ToE percentage to get yourself some reinforcement points. Essentially choosing more, smaller divisions.

I'm sure there's problems with this, but the overall point is that there's a whole universe of game mechanisms you might employ to simulate a more flexible approach.  



Panama -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 3:28:14 AM)

If Mussolini hadn't invaded Greece and totally screwed up the Balkans Germany may not have had to help them. Then perhaps the Soviet invasion would have gone off on schedule in May instead of late June. Four to six weeks of fair weather may have made a difference. And the Soviet divisions would have been in that much worse shape.

I don't see anything yet about the Soviet command control problems as they happened historically. The Soviet high command had no communications with the units at the frontier. First off, STAVKA had ordered the Front commands forward from their peacetime locations to their wartime locations that were closer to the frontier. This just happened to take place on the night of June 21/22. So the peacetime HQ had skeleton crews while everyone else was moving forward. This fairly rendered the Front HQs incapcitated at a crucial time. Also, coms were screwed even without German intervention. The coms were run through the public phone lines and the Germans bombed them into oblivion so it was extremely difficult if not impossible to have reliable contact with the armies at the frontier. That's why STAVKA sent staff officers out in aircraft to the different HQs to see what the heck was going on.

So, no coms with units at the frontier left those units with only their prewar deployment orders with which to react to the German invasion. These orders invariably ordered units forward. These orders were hard wired. Without STAVKA direction the divisions moved to their prewar deployment location.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to force the Soviet player to keep units near the frontier on turn one and to move those towards the rear to the front at least some of their movement allowance. But never back.



randallw -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 3:56:11 AM)

The Axis turn 1 has lower ZOC movement penalties, and goes before the Soviet turn 1; this effectively allows the Axis player to bring thunder and lightning onto the Soviet units near the border with no chance for the Soviet player to react.  Unlike other games there is no mechanism here where units are out of command control.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 5:36:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

The Axis turn 1 has lower ZOC movement penalties, and goes before the Soviet turn 1; this effectively allows the Axis player to bring thunder and lightning onto the Soviet units near the border with no chance for the Soviet player to react.  Unlike other games there is no mechanism here where units are out of command control.

In support of that, as much as I want a plausible 42 (emphasis) axis victory condition, I don't want to restrict Soviets too much to the historic yet tedious reality of no command and control early.

Because of the nature of the game, week-long, turns, and the fact that info on 'best moves' is available to anyone (see this thread as example of perfect Axis Turn 1), the benefits of perfect awareness of where Soviet units are, how best to isolate them, and complete mastery of game mechanics (at least for Turn 1!), the maximization Germany can achieve cancels out the command freedom the Soviets receive.

Fair is fair.

That's my opinion.

/edit
That Q-ball opener is REALLY powerful. It's a ball-buster for the Soviets. I think it puts them more than adequately in the "Oh **** what are we going to do now" position that Soviet commanders faced

Q-ball [sm=00000947.gif]



Klydon -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 5:38:53 AM)

Part of the issue with the "if Hitler had not needed to invade the Balkans and lost 4-6 weeks, the campaign would have been a lot different" is that it ignores the historical weather during that time period. Essentially, spring was late in 1941 and it was a wet spring on top of that. The ground conditions absolutely sucked in May and it was well into June before they dried out enough for reliable mobile operations along most of the front (still some issues on AGS front). Now, that is not to say things would have been different with no Balkans side show. The Germans would have had other forces available from the start of the campaign including 2nd and 5th panzer and the mobile units of AGS would have been available from turn one. On top of these units, another mountain division (the one used for Crete) and also the parachute division would have been available from the start (or in the case of the paratroopers; something else interesting like invading Malta could have taken place). What impact all this would have had on Africa would be up for speculation/debate as the British really had the Italians on the ropes in Libya and it was the need to send units to Greece that really saved the Italians and allowed the Germans to send help in time although it could also be argued that the British just didn't have the logistics to support getting to Tripoli either. 



Tarhunnas -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 6:35:06 AM)

Another aspect of the German invasion of the Balkans is that it had the effect of lulling the Soviets into a sense of security, not that that was the intention. It seemed a bit unlikely that the Germans would commit major forces to invading several countries in the Balkans and then almost immediately invade the Soviet Union, so without the Balkans, maybe the element of surprise that the Germans achieved against the Soviets would have been less.

In fact, the first two years of WW2 seem almost unreal in their pace. I mean, if someone had suggested that this year we invade Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France and send a Panzer army to Africa, next year we take Yugoslavia, Greece, mount an airborne assault of a major mediterranean island and then invade the Soviet Union, that does seem a rather overambitious plan! [X(] Today it probably simply couldn't have been done even if someone wanted to. The US needed 6 months of preparation before evicting the Iraqis from Kuwait in the first gulf war for example, which was a tiny operation by WW2 standards.



randallw -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 7:08:48 AM)

It has been written that Stalin hoped that the Balkan adventure for the Germans would take months of time, eliminating a 1941 summer adventure into Russia.



Skanvak -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 5:15:46 PM)

Two remarks :

1/ No balkans means a neutral Greece that could switch to Western Allied resulting in an unopposed landing far closer to Berlin than Normandy or Sicily : Axis lose in 43-44 in this scenario.

2/ Panama, I think a great game like this is possible IF a true multiplayer for on country is developped.



wworld7 -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 7:41:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

If Mussolini hadn't invaded Greece and totally screwed up the Balkans Germany may not have had to help them. Then perhaps the Soviet invasion would have gone off on schedule in May instead of late June. Four to six weeks of fair weather may have made a difference. And the Soviet divisions would have been in that much worse shape.


iirc, the late Spring rains in 1941 would have delayed the start of Barbarossa until mid June anyway. Perhaps it could have started 1 or 2 (at most) weeks earlier, but it has been 30 years since I did that research so I am not 100% positive.



Klydon -> RE: Game Balance - Giving Germany a chance (2/19/2011 10:28:03 PM)

I don't see where a neutral Greece means the Allies land and then move up towards Berlin. Exactly which country are they going to go through and you have to realize the terrain whichever way they go is far tougher than trying to go across the plains of northern France to reach Germany. In addition, how exactly is an invasion staged out of Greece supposed to succeed when the lines of communication are very exposed to Axis countermeasures?

Now granted a scenario could be that the British are "welcomed" into Greece, set up shop, build airbases and have at it with Germany's oil supplies, but I don't see this as a very likely scenario given the Greeks would likely be very concerned about retaliation from the Axis powers in terms of air power, etc. In addition, there is a very good chance that the German paratroopers would have been used to take out Malta, giving the British no flank protection from the Italian mainland and also increase the issues of trying to detect if the Italian fleet is at sea or not. The British (and Americans) just would not have the ability to project the type of power necessary into the eastern Med before 1943 at the earliest and then if it became a choice between landing in a neutral Greece or Italy/Sicily, they would have likely gone with Italy/Sicily again.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.375